About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
MSNBC 8
MSNBCW 8
CNNW 5
CNN 3
LANGUAGE
English 34
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34 (some duplicates have been removed)
congress act on the nondiscrimination act. i hate to beat up on harry reid more than i already have this month, but let me do that right now. why do you think harry reid is refusing to bring this to the floor to vote. >> it's been three years since harry reid promised he would bring that to the floor to vote hasn't stated a reason. i don't know what the reason is, and no one can explain it, but the good news out of the white house position on the executive order is that they point to the senate, they point to the house and say they should act. we say we agree. we would love for the white house legislative team to lobby aggressively with harry reid to bring up that vote. we think there is important public education when you hold a vote. a great debate that is 90% of americans mistakenly believe this has already passed congress. we have public education to do and that senate vote would help. >> john: the lobbying could be just a phone call to harry reid. is there renewed urgency with the sequester about it take place with the fear of the layoff of federal employees. >> we know as you
, your thoughts on this. i mean, isn't this harry reid's fault? harry had a chance to change the rules of the senate and he was too nice to mitch mcconnell and now look what we've got. there's probably more to come. your thoughts. >> i suppose so, though i remember not very long ago when we were all suffering under the george w. bush administration and there was a real fear that without the filibuster then george bush would have been able to put some of his very radical extremists on the bench and push through more of his agenda. so i understand the reticence to kind of unleash the nuclear option. and you know, i don't think you can necessarily blame harry reid for the unprecedented not just obstructionism but kind of paranoid lunacy of this new crop of senators who, you know, before i think we used to see this sort of incredibly paranoid mccarthyite apocalyptic view of american foreign policy among some of the characters in the house -- >> doesn't that make the case for why harry should have done, this because of the ted cruzes of the world and the tea parties of the world? they're tr
. >> on the other side of capitol hill, senate majority leader harry reid says it's the republicans' fault. no butts about it. >> i think he should understand who is sitting on their posterior. the speaker is doing nothing to try to pass anything over there. >> well, the president didn't engage in the posterior pow-wow but did play the blame game. >> there are too many republicans in congress right now who refuse to compromise even an inch when it comes to closing tax loopholes and special interest tax breaks. and that's what's holding things up right now. >> "outfront" tonight democratic congressman chris van holland. not every day we get to hear that word used on capitol hill. >> i will put aside the posterior politics right now. other than that, let's get at it. >> the president criticized republicans for their unwillingness to raise taxes in order to reduce the deficit but i wanted to ask you this, because you know the numbers. the tax policy center has said that nearly 80% of american households have gotten a higher federal tax bill because of the fiscal cliff deal you all did at the beginning
. senate majority leader harry reid cuttings off debate, calling for lawmakers to make a decision. now republicans are threatening to block that vote saying they have some unanswered questions. a few of them spoke with our mike emanuel, chief congressional correspondent. first start off with what harry reid, the top democrat in the senate is saying about all this. this morning he was quite emotional about what is going on. till us about that. >> reporter: jenna, that's right. harry reid has 55 democrats in the senate who would vote to move forward with the chuck hagel nomination, confirmation process. the bottom line though he needs 60. so he needs five republicans to come along to get past that procedural hurdle. he doesn't have those five. so harry reid is frustrated. >> mr. president, in less than two hours our country will be without a secretary of defense at a time when we have a war going on in afghanistan, and about 70,000 troops there. we have a nuclear weapon was detonated in north korea. >> reporter: a nuclear test was done in north korea and 66,000 troops in afghanistan but
you think you should be going after harry reid as well? >> well, listen. i think harry reid has been clear that he will bring this for a vote. there's a bipartisan group of members of congress working on this issue, in particular universal background checks. and i don't think that democrats are the issue here. there are a number of republicans including self-proclaimed moderates who have yet to commit to support something that has the support of 90% of americans. columbine may not have happened if we had universal background checks. those guns were purchased at a gun show without checks. this won't solve every issue but it'll go a long way in terms of addressing the problem. >> great to see you. >>> i want to bring in our friday political power panel. gang, it's great to have you all here. let's dive into sequestration because it's just so fun. david brooks' article in the "new york times" saying the president hasn't come up with a proposal to avert sequestration let alone one that is politically plausible. peggy noonan in "the wall street journal" is saying it's always cliff ceiling
to harry reid. bill: that is cab fare, by the way. steve hayes, senior writer, "weekly standard." fox news contributor. good morning to you. >> good morning bill. >> president is on the road. no meetings to talk about this between senate leaders and house leaders. no meetings with the administration. friday there is no session on the schedule for congress. >> right. what's different about this one is that in the past, the fiscal cliff, these other things you at least staff to staff contact and negotiations and ongoing discussions, sort of largely out of public view. that even is not happening in this scenario. i think we're likely to see the sequester come march first and see how it plays out the next month. bill: if it comes, this deadline is little different from what we've seen in the past, steve. >> right. bill: this is gradual. make it works its way into the system a little bit at a time during the month of march. for sure during april. >> right. bill: it seems to have a different feel. there is not the urgency there. >> it does. this is where the white house is having, creating some
was congress who devise this idea. john boehner pushed it through the house and harry reid pushed it through the senate. whether obama came up with the idea or came out of thin air is irrelevant to members of congress told by speaker boehner he would be able to find a solution. members of congress are sick and tired of hearing their republican leadership say this. >> after this went through, 98% he got what he wanted. was this basically republicans betting on they would have a different president come this time? >> that, but again the folks who were convinced by boehner to vote for this and some folks thought we wouldn't get to this. they thought we will shame ourselves and having to do our job before the end of the last congress. i don't think any of them have anticipated we would be five & we understand it's aggravating. if are most americans, it's really disappointing and terrifying to think that this is how the government is disfunctioning. >> it's ridiculous. we put it in real terms and bathing suit season is coming. >> get your one piece. >> get ready, it's coming. i appreciate your ti
and harry reid met last week, and they emerged from the meeting saying the same line that they're saying publicly to reporters. they said privately. the senate needs to move is john boehner's message sfwloosh the fact is that both sides blaming the other. they all signed on because the sequester was approved as a matter of legislation, but it was, as bob woodward reports in his book, it was a white house proposal to the hill to get past a previous budget crisis. >> one of the most curious lines in washington right now that this is obama's sequester. yes, the president might have proposed it. house republicans pushed it through their chamber, and the senate pushed it through the senate. it's really everybody's responsibility. all hands were on deck in 2011 when they did this. now, both sides have political advantages to stay where they are. the senate needs taxes. house republicans cannot put any tax revenue in this equation because john boehner passed tax increases with the fiscal cliff and cannot afford to do it again politically. it's too difficult for him. >> what about what's happeni
steenkamp on valentine's day. to politics now and senate majority leader harry reid is staying put. the nevada democrat says he will run for a sixth senate term in 2016 when he'll be 76 years old. he won a tough re-election battle against sharron angle in 2010. rand paul is putting his money where his mouth is. the fiscal conservative is returning about 17% of his senate office budget to the u.s. treasury. that amounts to $600,000. >> it's time to allow marriage for gay and lesbian couples. >> couples are committed, they ought to have i think the same sort of rights that everyone has. >> former first lady laura bush will no longer be seen in that ad supporting marriage equality. the group behind this spot has agreed to remove her from it. mrs. bush's spokeswoman says the former first lady did not approve the use of the 2010 interview that is featured in the ad. >>> at the same time former republican presidential candidate jon huntsman says he supports same sex marriage. the former utah governor made the announcement in an op-ed in the american conservative. >>> and the grandson of
comes up at the end of the month? >> listen if harry reid wanted to bring it up he could cancel a vacation and come in next week if he wanted. the real easy answer is immediately provide the information. there is a history with the administration and the majority party not providing all of the information. they will provide a little bit here, a little bit there. hopefully you will forget about it. bottom line if they want to get this done, they should sit down with the concerned senators and actually provide the appropriate information. that is pretty simple. bill: this is what we heard. at least two of the speeches apparently were made, four, maybe five years ago that were not provided. was it intentional for him not to present these speeches because they thought it would be controversial? >> i'm not sure, certainly. but they are, people are aware of them and they need to be part of the entire package that is being presented. and the senators have an absolute right to get this information. bill: senator lindsey graham has been hot on this trail and his big issue is not having t
't attack the president. they attacked nancy pelosi and harry reid. they avoided talking about -- >> but here, they have to go one on one with the president because he's the one that they're fighting with. it is not really harry reid and nancy pelosi leading the charge. >> bill: the other thing they say, we can absorb this. it won't be so bad. $1.2 trillion, that's over ten years. yet the pentagon comes out yesterday with a -- not with a study, they reported that they've already told 800,000 civilian employees you're going to face a furlough if this kicks in. that means they take one day a week off. that's a 20% cut in their pay. again, i'm trying to get in the mindset of republicans who think it is a good idea to let this happen. >> well, even unless -- if you look at the defense spending that we would go back, this would roughly be what the defense department was spending in 2006-2007 when they're waging two wars. maybe the defense department could cut back. the pentagon has never been able to do a full audit. it is risky because the white house put out a memo. i'm sure you s
eternal. the president can sit down with harry reid tonight and work with senate democrats who have the majority in the senate to move a bill. it's time for them to act. i've made this clear for months now. and yet we've seen nothing. >> now, he wants them, senator, to move legislation that passed in the last congress. the last congress is irrelevant right now. you need new legislation in order to pass a bill. >> wolf, what's not irrelevant is last congress we had the tax increase. so now it's spending cut time. the president doesn't want to to the spending cut. we had the tax increase -- >> right now, to avert this fiscal crisis we have right now, these forced spending cuts, you need a new bill. you can't use a bill from the old congress. >> the president -- you know what, and i think scott walker, the wisconsin governor, said it, let the president come out and say, here's where we're going to cut $85 billion in spending. the bottom line is the president doesn't want to cut spending. it's $16 trillion in debt. he doesn't want to cut spending. >> he does want to cut spending but he
to the left that they can't-- all right i've got to go. >> the bills have been passed and harry reid won't bring them up. if you want to compromise get in the game and-- >> we've had that debate and the two parties see it very differently. in any event, kind of depressing, isn't it? and thanks for being here, though. thanks for being here. and maybe this will cheer you up, can you sue your parents for not loving you enough? we'll investigate that next. >> kelly's court is back in session. a 32-year-old man accusing his parents not loving him enough as a child so he's suing them for a hefty allowance. bernard bay is homeless and yet an aspiring record mogul. he blames his parents for his situation and saying they weren't loving or nurturing at all when he was a child and now he's asking a judge to force him to pay up claiming $200,000 should set things right. his mother says, bernard, get a job. adding that she has had a lifetime of old bernard and she's done. can you really sue for this? jonna spilbor is a former prosecutor and now defense attorney and julia is a former prosecutor and n
with the sequester idea. in fact he has the exact time and date when they first pitched it to senator harry reid, july 27th, 2011. what's your read on that? >> very detailed reporting by bob woodward there. it's an interesting take. certainly the republicans have jumped on. it's been a debate over the last few weeks about who -- actual lit last few months about whose idea this was. you have jack lew, the former chief of staff to the president, up for treasury secretary who said it at a hearing. this was a republican idea. you see the president has sort of hinted at that, too. more recently jay carney at the white house has acknowledged this isn't a white house idea. the republicans are making a big issue of that. as much as the white house is fanning the flames of concern now, sounding the alarms this week it was their idea. they're saying the president needs to come and meet us and sort of acknowledge we gave a little bit on the fiscal cliff on taxes and not going to do it this time. that's the strategy the republicans are using to pin it on the white house. >> joann, they're really blaming the
and need more time. it was harry reid who called this vote as sort of an attempt to call their bluff saying this is enough, you're delaying this for no reason but i don't think this is going to help the republicans' image especially when they're going around saying we're not actually trying to stop this nomination. we're not actually filibustering, so what are they doing? i think especially for people who are sick of the sort of washington games, this isn't a good image for them. >> jake, let's talk about this break that congress is on. house speaker nancy pelosi blamed republicans for not using this time more productively. take a listen. >> they manufactured the crisis and instead of having us try to avert that crisis they go on a nine-day recess. why? ? why? people outside the congress are saying no deal, no break. >> why, jake, why? >> nancy pelosi did similar things when she had control but that simplifies a complicated issue. democrats and republicans and the president are miles apart when it comes to averting the sequester. democrats want to raise taxes. republicans say they don't wan
york times." he begins with these words. on july 26, 2011, jack lew went to harry read's budget for a session. according to bob woodward's book, they came up with a trigger idea to force a budget deal. what's the idea, reid asked? sequestration, lew said. reid folded himself over with his head between his knees as if he was going to throw up. here's the question. if this is such a horrible idea, sequestration or these forced budget cuts, why did the white house come up with this idea to begin with? >> well, as you remember, wolf, in the summer of 2011, we were facing a situation where the nation was about to default for the first time in its history because republicans were refusing to agree to a balanced approach to a deficit reduction. both sides were looking for a way to craft a deal that would avoid default and a trigger mechanism. sequestration, which is a word that most americans have never heard before, is simply a way of crafting policy that was so onerous that would cause cuts that nobody liked, republicans or democrats, and because of that they would compel the prospec
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)